Uppity-Negro.com

The documentary Deadline: The Movie just finished running on Dateline NBC.

With ads.

"Jarring" doesn't begin to cover it. But that's the case even when the discussion isn't about race, poverty, political corruption, death and other light topics, I suppose. And this did give the film a larger audience than it would otherwise receive.

Not sure if you need a registration to read the Trib's series, Failure of the death penalty in Illinois, but since the writers, Ken Armstrong and Steve Mills, appeared frequently in the film, along with Cornelia Grumman, who "won the 2003 Pulitzer Prize for editorial writing for a series of editorials on Illinois' troubled death penalty system," it's worth a look, if you wanted to know more.

Also, those are journalists. The gentleman currently interviewing former Governor Ryan on The Abrams Report, Dan Abrams?

Who started off by mispronouncing Kankakee?

And, if I heard right, announced that Des Moines is in Illinois?

And let a guest, Joshua Marquis, say (paraphrasing) that the number of innocent people on death row is very, very small? Without asking, "Don't you think that's too many. . . dumbass?"

Not so much a journalist. Or perhaps I have a mistaken definition of the word.

Update: There's an open thread for discussion of the film, over at their brand-new blog,

Also, Abrams did get around to asking Mr. Marquis about that whole executing someone who was wrongfully convicted thing. This has never, ever happened, apparently, but someone will die because of Ryan's decision to commute sentences. Definitely.

Scott Turow jumped on that one.

Then this. . . creature from Texas named Kim Ogg jumped on. . . no, I'm not making this up.

Posted by Aaron at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

Except not this Yano, but rather that Yano, whom Christine is aware of. Confused? Good, that's the effect I was going for, since I'm feeling that way myself, and wanted to share. Matters may become clearer after reading ASIAN POP: How Hello Kitty Came to Rule the World / With little advertising and no TV spinoff, Sanrio's 30-year-old feline turned cute into the ultimate brand

In the United States, Asian American girls and women have long been a core segment of Hello Kitty's market, shopping both at retail outlets in Chinatowns and Japantowns in big cities and at Sanrio's own company-operated stores. More recently, Hispanic American females have discovered and become big consumers of Hello Kitty goods. In the course of her research, [Christine] Yano asked her contacts at Sanrio, "What's in it for Hispanics?" Their answer, she says, was "family values."

Or not. The article doth also mention:

Then there are porn stars like Kiko Wu ("the Net's first real Asian amateur") or Bianca Lee, who have been known to cavort lustfully with Hello Kitty merchandise; in one photo on her Web site, Lee deploys the Hello Kitty vibrator, a cheerful, pink-plastic instrument equipped with a figurine of the famous feline (clutching a little teddy bear) at one end. Sanrio, which cautiously guards Hello Kitty's wholesome image as far as all of its licensed products are concerned, prefers to call the gadget a "personal massager."

Also seen recently at Boing Boing: Sex toys still banned in Alabama, guns okay:

A decision issued yesterday by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals says Alabama doesn't have to lift its silly, arcane 1998 law banning the sale of sex toys. The Constitution does not include a right to sexual privacy, the panel of three judges ruled. Americans would disagree, including this one.

Which is where the title comes from. Pretty much.

Thanks to the Good Twin, for sending a link to a different ASIAN POP article, but this is getting too long as it is, seeing as I'm on hiatus and all. . .

Posted by Aaron at 5:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

If not downright unemployable at this point. Guess it's wrong to blame all that entirely on the linguistics degree, though. . . read a serious interview with Jon Stewart, by Ted Koppel no less, and what jumped out at me was the emphasized bit:

STEWART: It's that the partisan mobilization has become part of the media process. That they realize that, this real estate that you possess, television, is the most valuable real estate known to rulers. If Alexander the Great had TV, believe me, he would have had his spin guys dealing. Napoleon would of had people working. The key to leadership is to have that mouthpiece to the people.

Figure what he actually said (or repeated, as it's transcribed properly in the previous sentence) was would have, or the contraction would've. Not much difference in how they're pronounced, so it's an easy mistake for the transcriber to make. Or is it transcriptionist?

Anyway, it's worth a look. Link seen at Romanesko, right above a right above a bit from a Washington Post interview with former NPR host Bob Edwards, about his new gig with XM Satellite Radio.

Well, guess if he can manage to find a job. . .

Posted by Aaron at 3:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Unless you're a member of Salon, that is, but just watch the thing and read danah boyd's piece, The new blogocracy:

As a practice, journalism espouses an air of objectivity, purporting to cover all sides of a debate, equally and with emotional distance. While few believe that journalists are unbiased, it is considered a respectable aim of the profession and readers expect them to be as objective as possible. Bloggers, on the other hand, have no such cultural code and their readers rarely hold them accountable for objectivity.

Trying to come up with a non-pretentious way of explaining that I liked the piece because it's written from the perspective of a weblog consumer (reader) rather than a producer (blogger [which, yes, she is as well]), but failing completely. Possibly because that's not entirely accurate a description, but also because nothing screams pretension like parentheticals and bracketheticals.

Bracketheticals?

Right, one more time: This entry subject to major revision or sudden disappearance when my brain starts functioning again.

Posted by Aaron at 9:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

Which doesn't work for Air America here in Chicago, and hasn't for a while, but never mind the details. . . Chuck D. did a brief interview with Aaron McGruder this morning on Unfiltered, with Davey D along for the ride. I think you can hear the show on the Air America Place - Air America Radio mp3 Archive. However, I've been wrong in the past.

Also, WBEZ mentioned a few days back that Barack Obama does have competition in the Senate race, just not a Republican. Well, technically, since Ryan hasn't gotten around to filing the paperwork to remove himself from the ballot. . . he's been very busy you know. . . anyway, there's also Jerry Kohn, a pro-life Libertarian, and Albert J. Franzen, an Independent. Should that be capitalized?

There are interviews with both these gentlemen, as well as reactions to last night's keynote from Judy Baar Topinka and other Illinois residents, up at WBEZ's Election Coverage Audio Library.

Huh. Should probably change that title to something about turning your PC speakers on.

And scrolling down the page of BEZ's archives, there's also an interview with one of the other contenders for the GOP nomination, Dr. Chirinjeev Kathuria.

No, I'm not going near that one. I do have some tact, you know.

Update: Jack Ryan officially withdraws from Senate race, by way of those fun-loving kids at Gapers Block:

"Tuesday we will have a US Senate candidate who, I really do believe once you get the comparison going, is not only going to give Obama a run for his money, but could very easily defeat him," said [State GOP leader Judy Baar] Topinka.

[. . .] The mystery will end Tuesday when the new republican candidate is announced.

Ok, I can see her saying, "very possibly defeat him." But easily?

Um. . .

Listening to the entire Unfiltered stream from this morning; they have some reactions to the keynote from Da Ma-- Mayor Daley, and from Governor Blagojevich.

The spelling of which I had to look up, yes.

Posted by Aaron at 6:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Someone sent this to me. Honest.

ELLEgirl Magazine Hello, Kitty Promotion:

ELLEgirl salutes Hello Kitty, the global style icon and pop culture phenomenon. Since her debut in 1974, Hello Kitty has traveled from toy store to couture, crowning her the most fashionable kitty around today. To celebrate her eternal youth, ELLEgirl has hidden the face of Hello Kitty along with a few chic Hello Kitty items throughout the pages of the June/July issue. You don't have to be Nancy Drew to find them-just look for the face that launched a million "awwws."

No, I'm not going to pick up the magazine to look for them. But thank you for asking.

Other than the ongoing 30th Anniversary festivities, the mention of Nancy Drew is worth noting. So I note. Because I'm wondering if their target demographic is familiar with the character. . .

And if not, well. . .

nbm has also announced the launch of a new line of kid books for 2005 called papercutz that'll begin with new versions of the hardy boys and nancy drew. a comic book serial of the latter will start this november courtesy of creators scott lobdell and lea hernandez.

e.e. cummings style in the original, from artblog. And Lea Hernandez? Always good.

As you could tell from the Manga Secrets wallpaper I'm currently using on the computer, if you could see it. Or I remembered where I got it -- possibly her LiveJournal. I was using an image from Tristan's, but decided it may not have been WiFi-cafe safe. For that brief instant when I the background is actually visible, before I open a zillion windows. But I digress.

And have, in fact, forgotten what the original point was.

So, changing the subject, brief review of Birth of a Nation in Time, seen at Thought Balloons.

Management apologizes for the poor quality of this entry. As always. And the backlog of email. And book reviews. And. . . Management apologizes for being of poor quality, basically.

Update: Want to know more? See also: Lea Hernandez's Comics for Girls, from last November, over at Bookslut. And if you didn't guess that it's by Karin Kross from the site and subject, you're just not paying attention.

Also, "the most fashionable kitty around today" is my new nickname for Rachel.

That is all.

Posted by Aaron at 3:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Doing a terrible job of keeping up with things, but still manage to visit The Sideshow every single day. Why, you ask? Well, there's yesterday's link to Boston.com: Bush courts black voters in speech, but response is tepid:

An awkward quiet had settled over the hotel ballroom when the Republican president, who got less than 10 percent of the black vote in 2000, stirred things up by telling the audience he wanted them to support his reelection, a request that drew looks of incredulity and murmurs of surprise.

"I know, I know," Bush said. "The Republican Party's got a lot of work to do. I understand that."

That line drew the most enthusiastic applause for any of Bush's remarks, including from the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who attended the conference and sat up front for the speech.

"You didn't need to nod your head that hard, Jesse," Bush told him.

Well, I laughed, anyway.

The President also asked about the Democratic Party taking the votes/support of the African-American community for granted. Which, yeah, they kind'a do, and had he suggested a viable alternative, some other political party perhaps, I'm confident the audience would have given the matter some thought.

Of interest to the NABJ, NAHJ, AAJA and NAJA members in the house:

Bush yesterday accepted an invitation to speak next month at a conference of African-American, Asian, Hispanic, and Native American journalists in Washington.

That's UNITY, for us civilians; they have a brief news release on the subject:

President George W. Bush has accepted an invitation to speak at UNITY 2004, the world’s largest gathering of journalists of color, on Friday, August 6. The convention will be held August 4-8 at the Washington Convention Center in Washington , D.C.

"We are pleased that President Bush will meet with our journalists of color, so we can hold a dialogue in this presidential campaign on the most important issues facing people of color in the nation," said Ernest R. Sotomayor, UNITY President and Long Island Editor for Newsday.com in New York.

[. . .] The convention is the signature event of UNITY: Journalists of Color, Inc. -- an alliance representing the combined 7,000 members of the Asian American Journalists Association (AAJA), National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ), National Association of Hispanic Journalists (NAHJ) and the Native American Journalists Association (NAJA).

Someone who enjoys raining on parades -- so, clearly, not me -- will no doubt mention NLGJA, because there aren't enough acronyms flying around, and the absence is, um, a long story, really.

LGBT Events at UNITY

All the Gays are White, All the People of Color are Straight, but Some of us are Brave: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender People of Color
All gay people are white? All people of color are straight? So where does that leave me? The face of gay and lesbian America is changing. More and more African-American, Asian, Latino and Native Americans who are also lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender are coming out, but they are often overlooked. This workshop will provide journalists with information and resources on how to identify and cover issues pertain to gay and lesbian people of color, and will discuss the potential clashes between race-based civil rights issues and gay and lesbian issues.

Ok, maybe not that long a story. Be nice if the people who need (in my biased opinion, anyway) to attend that particular workshop the most weren't also the least likely to show up, but I don't do parade-raining.

Much.

Posted by Aaron at 4:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

. . . as observing from a safe distance. Very, very, very far away. In today's New York Blade, America's Sweetheart (whether America knows it or not) Rachel Kramer Bussel writes of Spike Lee’s booty-bumpin’ lesbian sex thang:

When Spike Lee’s new film “She Hate Me” opens on Wednesday, July 28, viewers will have the chance to see 19 self-identified lesbians, most of them women of color, on the big screen. This is a huge step, certainly, but is it a positive one?

Already causing a stir within the queer community, the film is sure to provoke viewers of all persuasions — but especially lesbians — with its over-the-top queer plotline.

And that's the part where I gently suggest, like the real weblog people, that you read the whole thing.

Mentioned the film here before, but the article has interviews with "technical consultant" Tristan Taormino, who's name I consistently spell and probably pronounce wrong even when my brain is working, Claire Cavanah, Samiya Bashir, and lots of other people whose names I could copy and paste just as easily as the previous ones.

And if you want to know more, Rachel helpfully provides links at her blog, Lusty Lady.

And I think I'm just going to end everything with this disclaimer for the time being: This entry subject to major revision or sudden disappearance when my brain starts functioning again.

Posted by Aaron at 10:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

But if anyone knows where you can get Inferno Vodka (spiced with the flames of hell, apparently) in the greater Chicagoland area, I'm sure Vaughn would appreciate it.

She ordered a Bloody Mary. I decided to have one too, since I never have before, and figured I should broaden my horizons.

I now think my horizons are quite broad enough, thank you.

And I hope I didn't bore the poor woman too much. . .

In other news, Andie's has really good vegan dolmas, and Simon's has. . . a fish with a viking helmet.

This entry subject to major revision or sudden disappearance when my brain starts functioning again.

Posted by Aaron at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

From Daily Kos, by way of Atrios:

Margaret Cho has been "uninvited" to perform at the Unity 2004 event which is taking place at Avalon, this coming Monday, July 26, around the Democratic National Convention. The Human Rights Campaign is one of 10 GLBT groups coming together July 26 at the nightclub to "celebrate GLBT strength and unity." Asked to headline the event, Cho was preparing to preview material from her new State of Emergency tour as part of an unpaid benefit performance. She has since been "uninvited" by a spokesman for the HRC, who cited "a potential media firestorm" and referenced the recent criticism of Whoopi Goldberg's routine at a Kerry fundraiser. Unity 2004 is not officially a part of the Democratic National Convention or the Kerry campaign. Many of the groups involved in Unity 2004 did not agree with the decision to rescind the invitation.

And that's all the good will I'd managed to work up towards HRC, because of their public stance against the Federal Marriage Amendment, gone, just like that.

I mean, if they really think removing Margaret Cho is going to defuse that "potential media firestorm," they must have the Republican attack machine confused with someone reasonable. And I can't come up with any possible reason to come to that conclusion.

Bad enough Slim-Fast dropped Whoopi as a spokesperson not because of a boycott, but because, according to CNN,

Some conservative groups and GOP supporters had threatened to boycott Slim-Fast products if it did not take action.

(emphasis, as usual, added).

But I've been wrong before. It's entirely possible that, by pre-emptively removing the controversial woman of color from the line-up, they'll manage to escape the hysterical, manufactured outrage the right wing seems so fond of and so damn good at.

Anyone care to wager on that?

Update: And of course, it's not like the woman hasn't had to deal with attacks from the right before or anything.

Posted by Aaron at 9:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I dunno, do the biases of the Associated Press and The Guardian cancel each other out? Reinforce each other? Have absolutely nothing to do with anything, given the piece, Democrats Head to Ga. Senate Runoff Race, has to do with primary elections in Georgia?

This would be a much better weblog if I had absolute certainty about the answers to these questions. Or didn't raise them at all. Or something.

Rep. Denise Majette, a former judge who won national attention two years ago by ousting firebrand Rep. Cynthia McKinney, finished first in Tuesday's election, leading millionaire entrepreneur Cliff Oxford, but she failed to reach the 50 percent threshold needed to win the nomination outright.

[. . .] In another Georgia primary, McKinney, a firebrand who lost her House seat two years ago to Majette in a backlash spawned by her incendiary remarks about President Bush, won a chance to take her old seat back in an Atlanta suburb. She beat five other Democrats with enough votes to avoid a runoff.

I like adding emphasis. It relaxes me.

If you're a bit fuzzy about what incendiary remarks the firebrand made, John Hood writes in GOP Primaries Matter at National Review Online:

Conservatives nationwide have arguably a more acute case of heartburn from the Georgia results with the discovery that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney, the longtime congresswoman who notoriously suggested that BUSH KNEW (about the 9/11 attacks), appears to have gained just enough votes in a comeback bid to avoid a runoff and will likely return to Congress next year to renew her strident and despicable conspiracy-mongering.

I expect this demonstrates the difference between the liberal and conservative media. One of degree.

Way outside the margins, Greg Palast wrote:

The McKinney “quote” was, indeed, all over the place: in the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and needless to say, all the other metropolitan dailies--everywhere but in Congresswoman McKinney’s mouth.

Nor was it in the Congressional Record, nor in any recorded talk, nor on her Website, nor in any of her radio talks. Here’s the Congresswoman’s statement from the record:

“George Bush had no prior knowledge of the plan to attack the World Trade Center on September 11.”

Oh.

Of course, Palast maintains that Al Gore didn't claim to have invented the Internet, either. Is there no end to his lies?

Some readers may think I deliberately hid this next bit, from Cynthia McKinney, critic of Israel, wins Democratic primary in Georgia, in the extended entry.

The resurrection of McKinney’s career comes as a surprise to many Jewish donors, who spent time and money to defeat her two years ago after a controversial tenure in Congress. McKinney had consistently angered many Jews because of her anti-Israel comments and vocal opposition to votes supporting Israel’s right to self-defense.

Though much was made of the Jewish community’s role in McKinney’s primary defeat in 2002, Jews had not been particularly active so far this year in trying to prevent her return to Congress.

And they'd be absolutely right, since I have no idea what to make of it. The story appears in JTA, linked by Google News as Jewish Telegraphic Agency, but I didn't notice that expansion anywhere on the site. Point being that I seem to recall accusations of antisemitism being tossed around at the time for suggesting, well, exactly what the article states. Perhaps if the suggestion had been phrased in a slightly less moronic fashion. . . I'm thinking of a quote from McKinney's father, I expect it'll make the rounds again, if you're curious.

And if Majette wins her runoff, there's the amusement value of the two of them being on the same ticket. Joint appearances, mutual endorsements. . .

Posted by Aaron at 2:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

. . . but me and Jen didn't win the raffle on Saturday night, which included goodies from Early to Bed, but no DYKEdolls (but there is an, ah, interestingly attired Barbie behind the counter if you visit the store, which readers in or passing through the Chicago area are encouraged to do). That last link from Heidi Macdonald's The Beat, specifically the entry LESBIAN BARBIE!:

With her leather jacket, muscle T-shirt, tattoo and downtown attitude, 12-inch-high Bobbie is poised to take the doll world by storm.

Which quote is actually from the (linked in her entry) NY Post article. . . and this is why I haven't been updating lately. It's just all too complicated.

But don't expect to see these Sapphic playthings at your toy store anytime soon. The DYKEdoll figures, which will sell for $49.95 apiece, are aimed at adults. Only buyers over 21 can get the $65 package, which includes "accessories": tiny leather harnesses and miniature vibrators.

Or something.

Also, what Rivka said:

Well, I've been busy, for one thing, but I've also been feeling somewhat depressed. When I'm in that state of mind, it's hard to muster the energy to go trolling through the worst sludge of the news looking for things to be outraged about, and harder still to believe that I have anything to say that's worth listening to.

Only without the busy part.

Perhaps worthy of note: in what's jokingly called real life, I worked with Larry Colson (if this name means nothing, don't sweat it, I'm sure this'll blow over by the next news cycle, if it hasn't already), so the conniption fits some people are going into are, well, not the sort of reading I'm going to either link or quote. And since any situation where I'm the one asking people to calm the fuck down is totally beyond any hope of salvaging, perhaps this isn't worthy of note after all.

Oh yeah, and calm the fuck down.

Or, if you're in need of something to stir the old outrage, Patrick Nielsen Hayden provides:

Since, after all, it was science fiction fandom that brought America the five-day week, an end to lynching, checks against corporate power, cleaner air and water and, oh yeah, the space program. You may have thought politics and government had something to do with all of those those, but actually, it’s we science fiction fans (who never sling mud, give boring speeches, or prevaricate) who really know what’s what.

In other news, Birth of a Nation, by Aaron McGruder, Reginald Hudlin and Kyle Baker, will be available for purchase, right off the presses, at the NBM booth at Comic-Con International: San Diego. This is not to be confused with Rebirth of a Nation by DJ Spooky (aka That Subliminal Kid):

In the original Birth of a Nation, the accompanying music for racially loaded imagery was suitably epic pieces like "The Battle Hymn of the Republic," and Wagner's "Die Walkure." In the 2004 incarnation, the soundtrack is a seamless mesh of hip-hop, jungle, dub, space rock, ambient sounds and violin performed live by Daniel Bernard Roumain. This time around, the film is not premiering in national theaters, but rather at a star-studded debut at New York's Lincoln Center as a live audio-video event, with the film projecting on three stages.

But the important thing is, I'm sure Eli from Go Fish will be very happy with the pasties.

And yes, I know I'm going to hell for that last comment. Among so many other things.

Was going to be some business in there about how I just handed money to the scantily-dressed woman at the show, then said, in a very disappointed tone, "Oh. Raffle tickets. I knew that" when she gave me some, but I couldn't make it work. Sorry.

Posted by Aaron at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Sunbleaching. I don't dye it. Honest.

Just in case anyone was confused by what Jen said yesterday.

Anyway, so. If you didn't go to Gurlesque Burlesque last night or Friday, you missed a damn fine show, and will live with this regret the rest of your days. So nyaaaah.

Seriously, it was great. If it wasn't for my sievelike memory and lack of a program, I'd write a detailed, glowing description of the greatness. As opposed to vaguely hinting at it, like I am now. Which isn't very effective, so I'll stop.

I'll also not bother explaining the things I said I'd explain later in that entry yesterday, because wild speculation is usually more interesting than the truth.

Um, unless you're me, come t'think of it.

Then the wild speculation just provides a welcome break.

Posted by Aaron at 3:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (4)

Right, headed to Gurlesque Burlesque tonight with some babe. I may be attempting to pass myself off as a girl trying unconvincingly to look like a boy, rather than a boy trying unconvincingly to look like a boy, as is in fact the case.

I'll explain later.

Or not.

First burlesque show I'll have ever seen, and I'm looking forward to it. If I end up not writing about it afterwards, or explaining the non-drag, well, ain't like there's been much in the way of updates around here lately.

This has spared you a great deal of self-indulgent public navel-gazing.

You're welcome.

Speaking of updates. . . Wendy will be there (Hi Wendy!), and veg went last night, and says Good Things about the show in Jen's comments. And advises arriving early taking your own sweet time getting there. Yes, that will do. . .

Also, two things: "Use Your Hands," and "fake money."

I'll explain later.

Or not.

Posted by Aaron at 1:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Well, yes, I'm a week late wishing George a Happy Birthday, but at least I didn't miss the Negrophile anniversary, right?

That was a rhetorical. Please don't answer that.

A better question is Why Lawd, Why? And conveniently, it's answered right in that link, reached by way of the site of the hour.

Or day.

Or something.

Posted by Aaron at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)

That's what United Press Syndicate says about the new strip Prickly City, anyway. The Palm Beach Post Staff Ombudsman adds:

The strip definitely is different from the left-leaning Doonesbury in that its perspective comes from the political right. In addition, Prickly City's quality beats another popular conservative strip, Mallard Fillmore, which features a conservative reporter-duck.

Which quote (more or less) at Romenesko is what sent me to the link, and looking for more info on the strip.

Or rather, reminded me, as last week he linked a Chicago Reader interview with/profile of the cartoonist, Scott Stantis:

He's launching a new comic strip, Prickly City [on July 12th], and the Tribune is one of about 40 papers that have already picked it up. "It's obviously a political strip," Stantis told me. "It's a cross between a conservative Doonesbury mixed in with Calvin and Hobbes and Peanuts. There's a real call for a quality character-driven comic strip with a conservative bent to it."

[. . .] Geoff Brown, who oversees comics at the Tribune, says he wanted a strip that would placate readers who piss and moan about Doonesbury and Boondocks. "It's not that a conservative strip can't take potshots at conservatives," Brown explains, "but I want to make sure it's not a centrist or seemingly liberal strip in disguise." He says readers who raise hell when the Bush administration is the target don't notice when Doonesbury and Boondocks "are running down icons on the left." Those readers deserve a strip they can be certain is on their side. The pickings were slim -- the ham-handed Mallard Fillmore, which the Sun-Times briefly carried and dumped a decade ago, and Stantis's brand-new strip.

Does anyone actually like Mallard Fillmore?

Then again, I ask the same thing about Cathy.

Then again, I ask the same thing about Day By Day, the name of which I'd forgotten, and I just wasted a good two minutes tracking the strip/link down.

This was not time well spent.

Too early to pass any sort of judgment on Prickly City, so perhaps unlike its fellow, explicitly right-leaning cousins, the strip will actually be funny.

Posted by Aaron at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In an attempt to placate Michelle, improve my mood, and because it seems like a very, very silly thing to do, we shall now rewrite lines from Prisoner of Azkaban, replacing a noun with "pants."

A word of caution: dementors are vicious creatures. They will not distinguish between the one they hunt and the one who gets in their pants.

Just be glad I didn't get on Susan's nerves -- other than by forgetting to wish her a happy birthday, because I suck -- or we'd be doing this with Dhalgren.

Posted by Aaron at 1:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Like how I skip the President's weekly radio address. Don't think I've ever listened to a single one of the things. . . any old way, this week, by way of The Poor Man: Remember Who The Base Is, the dirty vicar sketch President's Radio Address:

For ages, in every culture, human beings have understood that traditional marriage is critical to the well-being of families.

Well, ok, I cut a lot out. If you have a high tolerance for talk of protecting and preventing and activist judges, hit the link and knock yourself out. The whole thing was over the top, but that bit I did quote. . .

It's the "every" sort of breaks the spell. Since just one attested example of polyandry

In social anthropology, polyandry refers to a marital practice in which a woman has more than one husband simultaneously.

In rural regions of India, Nepal, China (in particular, Yunnan province), and surrounding nations, fraternal polyandry, in which two (or more) brothers marry the same woman, is culturally accepted. Polyandry is also the accepted norm in a few African societies.

sort of disproves that.

Which doesn't mean our President is lying, mind you. Just that he was given bad intelligence. This happens to him a lot.

There were other examples I could have used for this, of course. And I could'a pounced on this this instead:

When judges insist on imposing their arbitrary will on the people, the only alternative left to the people is an amendment to the Constitution -- the only law a court cannot overturn.

But I'm sure the NAACP or Congressional Black Caucus would have mentioned the same issues to him, when he spoke with either group.

I'd say I can't wait to vote against him (rather than for Kerry, more's the pity) in November, but it looks like I might have to wait. So much good news lately.

Posted by Aaron at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Quizilla quizzes, that is. Like, for this one, I'm not entirely sure the image what it spit out is Safe for Work. It's hard for me to judge stuff like that, for some reason, which is why it's safely concealed in the Extended Entry.

Which probably makes it sound worse than it actually is. . .

You are the mystery woman

Which Ultimate Beautiful Woman are You?
brought to you by Quizilla

Actually, the hair is kind'a close.

Posted by Aaron at 10:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Which doesn't necessarily mean I took it to heart. Looking over entries with a Draft status in Movable Type, this is from the earliest one, from June, 2002. The article itself is from June 17th, YellowTimes.org: Just Like Us:

Listening to all the incendiary rhetoric, accusations and finger pointing by Washington towards other nations these days, I can't help but be constantly reminded of the age-old adage that warns us: Beware of the finger that you point towards others, for indeed, in that very act, three other fingers point directly back at you. Buddhism and other worldly philosophies and religious disciplines teach us to weigh our criticisms of others in light of our own human condition. Truly, how can we pass judgment on someone else's words, behaviors, or character unless we have seen these things somewhere before, namely, in ourselves?

On a personal level, there is a small but significant exercise one is encouraged to perform whenever one finds oneself in judgment of another. After whatever statement you make about someone else, simply add the words, "Just like me."

This practice is based on the principle that none of us is perfect and that the flaws we recognize in others can be found within some aspect of ourselves. The beauty of this technique is that it tears away the veils of illusion of our alleged perfection, superiority and self-righteous vindication over others.

It reminds us of our own fallibility and endows us with a sense of humility, two concepts that seem to be utterly lacking within the hallowed halls of the U.S. government in general, but most noticeably within the ranks of the current Bush administration.

If you listen carefully to what our leaders are telling us about other dangerous, "evil" nations, terrorist groups, and "inferior" systems of government, while keeping in mind and adding the phrase "just like us" to everything they say, you will begin to discern just how all this finger- pointing is being utilized to obscure the sins of our own national inadequacies, guilt, failings, and outright evil transgressions.

Ok, looks like I did quote a bit of it back in July, 2002. Which in 'net/blog time is an eternity, yes?

Shame more things haven't changed in the intervening two years, which have seemed like an eternity. . .

Mind you, some things do change. Names, for instance:

The Republican Pro-Choice Coalition has changed its name to the Republican Majority for Choice to reaffirm the reality that 73% of Republicans believe that the right to choose should be a woman's decision, not the government's. The Republican Majority for Choice is dedicated to unleashing the power of that majority in Congress and state capitols across the nation, and the RMC PAC will mobilize this majority at the ballot box.

Seen at Alas, a Blog, along with much else more worth your time than hanging around here.

Posted by Aaron at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The thing is, there's a lot I don't know. A helluvalot I don't know. And although being aware of this ignorance (as opposed to ignance) makes me marginally less likely to make a public total ass of myself, it's no guarantee. Something else keeping me from posting as much as I could, that.

Preliminaries aside, next week brings those of us in Chicago a choice. A choice of nights, Friday or Satuday, for Gurlesque Burlesque at The Abbey Pub.Which show is, if I'm reading the advert correctly (see first paragraph), a benefit for the making of Tara Tremmel's documentary, Gurlesque. Some details in the New City Chicago article, Girlie shows, from way back on November 20th, 2002:

Tara Tremmel, [One Bad-Ass Burlesque Show] co-producer, is currently working on her doctorate at U of C and producing and directing "Gurlesque," a two-hour documentary dedicated to the genre. She describes the art as "a playground where performers have conversations" about their sexuality and societal roles, and relates a recent performance in Seattle in which a drag king chased another performer ostensibly to touch her goodies, but it turned out he just wanted to try on the dancer's sexy clothes. So, while Tremmel notes the form traditionally sees "people playing with all different ways of being female," burlesque allows each generation to address their specific issues, from what it means to be a woman to queer identity roles.

Bit old, but at least the whole thing is available online. UR Chicago only offer a bit of the current cover story, Brava Burlesque!. And I'm not sure I should have a full stop at the end of that previous sentence, but it's outside the anchor tag, so whatever.

The full piece in the print edition includes a photo of two members of Hellcat Hussies, who were also featured in a piece in the Chicago Reader recently. Where "recently" means I'm not sure what date, and the article apparently isn't on their site. I mentioned that first paragraph, yes?

What all this is meant to indicate, other than the tendency of free papers to not offer all their material online so you pick up the damned paper copy and see the ads that pay for the thing, is that there is much about burlesque I do not know. Not just the local scene, but the national, and the history of it, and the gender/orientation politics, all of which would no doubt make for fascinating reading were it presented by someone with a clue. Or fascinating viewing, as there is that documentary, the current status of which I could not discover with a quick Google. There is more info in this November 15, 2002 entry at the not-recently-updated shortandsweaty, including contact info for the director, as well as an informative press release:

Burlesque is an entertainment form that was originally performed by men who used comedy to poke fun at conventional hierarchies and to critique those in authority who misused or abused their power, such as legislators. In the United States, in 1869, women transformed burlesque into a new entertainment form by taking the stage and using comedy to especially play with gendered and sexual hierarchies and conventions. Both dangerous and pleasurable, early female burlesque placed women and their sexuality at the center of theater, purposefully and insistently taking up public space. Women burlesque performers, unlike ballet dancers of the day, created meaning through winks, laughter, and wit. They held influence over audiences, addressing them with defiance, walking alone on stage with confidence, placing their female bodies in public and insisting that people pay attention to them. Women solicited laughter and desire by playing with meaning, critiquing legislators, and like traditional burlesque, making a mockery of hierarchies of the day. Early burlesque performers invoked female sexuality through language, innuendo, puns, double entendres, intonation and male drag, arousing a frenzy of desire and then eventually, censure.

More, as the real bloggers say, in the link. Compare and contrast with the capsule history in the UR Chicago piece, if you want.

Not sure knowing all that -- or at least, having read all that, not the same thing at all -- will allow me appreciate the show next week at some level other than the obvious.

Yes, I'm just typing again at this point.

Any other Chicago-area types going? And if so, which night?

Posted by Aaron at 6:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I finally saw Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban last night, at the Navy Pier IMAX, with not one but two hot babes. Which is the best way to see anything, really.

Just as a matter of interest, anyone out there see the movie but not read the book? I came away thinking it was incomprehensible if you hadn't. And dwelling entirely too much on what was left out, which is why I'm also resisting the powerful urge to re-read the thing.

Yeah, I know, geek. Shut the hell up.

Update: Because it bears repeating:

And because if lots and lots of you buy the book, it'll defray some small fraction of what it costs to park near Navy Pier.

About that title. . . the house lights came up and the audience was notified, over the not-kidding-around sound system, of the locations of the exits about 30 seconds into the closing credits, which I'm sure wasn't just a subtle way of telling us to get the hell out so they could get ready for the next screening. Because it really wasn't all that subtle.

Also, the photo on this here page really doesn't do the Trojan Pig sculpture at Navy Pier Walk justice.

Posted by Aaron at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Not that I don't do that whole handwaving, "this is so obvious it need not be specified" thing, but I ain't setting national policy. Or whatever the kids think they're doing with this, since I hear they don't actually expect it to take hold. By way of Pandagon, in The Advocate, House Republicans vow to vote on marriage ban before election:

Leading Republican House of Representatives members who were once unenthusiastic about President George W. Bush's call for a constitutional amendment banning marriage for same-sex couples now say they plan to bring the idea to a vote just before next November's election. Senate Republicans have vowed to force a vote on their version of the Federal Marriage Amendment during the week of July 12, shortly before Democrats convene to nominate Massachusetts senator John Kerry as their candidate to unseat Bush. "We feel like marriage is under attack. Marriage is a spiritual bond between one man and one woman," House majority leader Tom DeLay, a Republican, said Wednesday. "I came to realize, in the end, we're going to have to do a constitutional amendment if we want to protect marriage."

[. . .] Privately, Republicans acknowledge they are eager to get [Kerry and Edwards] on the record opposing the amendment, because they believe such a vote would hurt them in the South and Midwest.

For a start, there's that "we" in the quote from DeLay. And the business about "under attack" (by whom?) and the desire to protect (from whom?). Yes, it's clear what he means from the passage, but the evasive way he phrases the sitch seems itself symptomatic of. . .

Sorry. Just slap me if I start doing that again. I'm just a wee bit frustrated with the whole deliberate vagueness thing.

Like in that second bit. Where "hurt" means "cost votes," presumably, but whose votes? And why do they think this will happen?

If I didn't know better -- come t'think of it, I don't -- I'd think they were trying to express their homophobia (or homo-hostile tendencies, if you prefer) in terms that make them feel good about themselves; they're defending something that's under attack. As opposed to writing discrimination into the Constitution, which just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Suppose it's a good sign that they feel the need to use the ego-boosting rhetoric. Or, that's just how everydamnthing gets publicly discussed these days, so everyone fills in the blanks with whatever interpretation works best for them.

I did ask you for the slapping, yes? I mean, this barely qualifies as typing, it's just noodling around at the keyboard. . .

Update: No, it's good news. More or less.

From Mother Jones: Gay Gamble:

Looking carefully at poll data, it seems that public opinion on the FMA hinges almost entirely on how the debate is framed. A February CBS poll revealed that a formidable 59 percent of Americans support a constitutional amendment that would "allow marriage only between a man and a woman." But when asked to weigh in on an amendment that would "outlaw marriages between people of the same sex," support dwindled to 51 percent. Notice how a subtle change in wording can change popular opinion. And there's more: a March poll conducted by the Annenberg Center showed that only 41 percent of Americans favor an amendment saying that "no state can allow two men to marry each other or two women to marry each other." When voters start thinking about states' rights and discrimination, suddenly the FMA doesn't sound like such a hot idea.

Like I said, more or less. . . link from Eschaton, by the way.

Posted by Aaron at 8:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBacks (1)

Er, which is more of that snark I said I was going to refrain from, as I imagine most people are as thrilled as I am at being labelled a "content producer,"

There's a new edition of Bookslut up, including a review of Bushwhacked: Life in George W. Bush’s America:

“We were tempted to begin this book by observing, ‘If y’all had’ve read the first book, we wouldn’t have to write this one.’ Cooler heads prevailed,” write Ivins and Dubose in the introduction. They’re exactly right. The predictions they made in Shrub by examining his stint in Texas politics came true in almost every way. In fact, they were understatements, but since Texas lacked a massive terrorist attack and the presence of John Ashcroft, it’s hard to fault them for missing one or two details.

And if you'd like to buy the book through them (by way of Amazon), that couldn't hurt either.

No idea how long the July edition of Sequential Tart has been up, but it is, and there's a piece on Death and the Female Character which has nothing to do with Neil Gaiman but does reference Gail Simone's Women in Refrigerators, if you encountered that site/notion recently when Anil Dash linked to it.

And speaking of comics, those listed in the New Comic Book Releases List should be hitting stores today.

Oh, and I somehow missed the announcement a few days ago at Boing Boing, but apparently there's a (the following link is to Fleshbot, is part of a Googlebomb campaign, and is quite possibly not safe for work - The Mgt.) War On Pornography going on. Which I did try tying into the NCRL thing by mentioning some of the listed publications, but the joke just wasn't working, and involved several other NSFW links. Sorry.

Posted by Aaron at 10:35 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

But ah hates it when anyone else responds to a yes or no question with something besides "yes" or "no," so I guess I should actually answer the (rhetorical, seems to me) query, "Is civility an endangered species in the blogosphere?"

No.

Was there a follow-up question?

Well, other'n the follow-up questions to the question itself, like how we're defining "civility." Or "blogosphere," for that matter. Do knitting blogs have flame wars? Do I really gotta accept that, say, Instapundit (you don't really need a link to that, right?) is by definition civil because there aren't comments?

I'm also -- ok, not surprised, how about bemused -- bemused at the relative lack of attention given to content (blogs that don't cover politics relentlessly aren't part of the blogosphere, apparently), and gender (which may tie into the previous point, possibly, in the smallest way).

Given that the only times there's been a decided lack of civility around here -- in comments, I'm leaving out the entries themselves, lord knows the stuff, however defined, is generally in short supply there -- has been when one of the A List right-wing blogs decided to explicitly send their readers here. . .

No, that thought isn't going anywhere. Let's just leave it at "no."

Posted by Aaron at 8:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

And here I was thinking I couldn't be surprised anymore. From an interview with Grant Morrison at PopImage:

It's interesting to me to see many people who have no need to work in comics express an interest only to receive a bad response from publishers. For years we've been name-dropping Rushkoff here at PopImage and I know Marvel has contacts for the likes of Quentin Tarantino, and M. Night Shyamalan 'cause we gave it to them. Hell, Noam Chomsky is doing his first ever comics work soon and it's not for either of the big two.

That's a question, or part of one. With emphasis added to the bit that caught my attention. Ok, not so much caught as grabbed by by the ankle and dangled upside-down waiting for loose change to fall out.

Haven't been paying much attention to this stuff -- found the Morrison interview at Thought Balloons, following a link from the dead and I should remove the link Journalista.

Not the Big Two, so. . . Archie? Image?

Avatar?

I'm not sure which of those possibilities is more disturbing.

Update: You know, an actual answer from the interview might be a nice thing to include.

'Sigil' as a word is out of date. All this magic stuff needs new terminology because it's not what people are being told it is at all. It's not all this wearying symbolic misdirection that's being dragged up from the Victorian Age, when no-one was allowed to talk plainly and everything was in coy poetic code. The world's at a crisis point and it's time to stop bullshitting around with Qabalah and Thelema and Chaos and Information and all the rest of the metaphoric smoke and mirrors designed to make the rubes think magicians are 'special' people with special powers. It's not like that. Everyone does magic all the time in different ways. 'Life' plus 'significance' = magic.

That's from a different page, but I'm confident you'll be reading the entire thing. Meaning you'll have to backtrack, as I linked a few pages in.

Because I'm flaky cool like that.

Posted by Aaron at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Yes, that's it, I'm gradually going to go through the links list. Rather than some superficial, glance at the top entry and link it sort of thing. That's it.

The top entry at Karin's place is an annoucement of Shameless self-promotion, namely putting two computers up for sale on eBay:

• "Pismo" G3 Powerbook
• Dell Latitude CSx laptop

Both computers are in good shape and come with a bunch of extras.

Just a suggestion, if you have a need for such things.

Meanwhile, over at Nalo's, there are snippets from what looks to be a lovely work in progress, and a link to a review of So Long Been Dreaming: Postcolonial Science Fiction and Fantasy:

This collection is appropriate since "post-colonial" may be how our century is remembered: Former colonies will continue to face the growing pains of statehood, former colonial powers must deal with their loss of imperial grandeur and the memories of the frequent brutality they needed to maintain those regions they "explored."

Explore. This word so central to science fiction and fantasy explodes with the promise of adventure and treasure -- both intellectual and economic. Explore, the harbinger of colonization. We explore space for scientific discovery but quickly discuss the possibility of Martian and Lunar colonies. But explore contains the more sinister implication of exploit; certainly the plural noun "exploits" has a sense of adventure but the word "explore" is tainted with the tenuous relationship with our colonial predecessors, those that expanded our empires, Christopher Columbus, the conquistadors, Andrew Jackson, etc.

It, um, does settle down and get to actually reviewing the stories after a bit. And I raised an eyebrow at, "Nalo Hopkinson recalls in his introduction," (emphasis guess what), but I'm working on reducing the snark content around here.

Again, gradual.

Posted by Aaron at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

More specifically, starting at dusk, Women in the Director's Chair presents:

WIDC GARDEN SCREENING
with NEW WORK by EMERGING CHICAGO MAKERS!!!

July 8 in the Garden of 2457 N. Fairfield in Logan Square $6-10 sliding scale Featuring CRUSH by Rebecca Spencer, FATTY DANCE PARTY by Sara McCool, performance/video duo MARRIAGE (Math Bass & James Tsang) and the Chicago premiere of FIVE ALARM MUFF by Kirston Fortune & KJ Mohr. And much more fresh new work by up and coming Chicago filmmakers!

Noticed at Gapers' Block, which I like better than Chicagoist, but really, can't we all just. . . never mind.

Crossposed to that other site I sometimes remember to update.

Posted by Aaron at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Good thing I hadn't known that before, I never would have voted for the woman.

That's Illinois State Treasurer Judy Baar Topinka. Yes, I vote for Republicans, as long as they're not, you know, fucking evil.

So, it's a rare thing.

Couldn't find a recent interview -- then again, I didn't look terribly hard -- so here's one from The Illinois Leader from last July 24th:

KRYSTLE: What do you say to those who criticize you and say that you are very liberal compared with most Republicans?

TOPINKA: I guess it would depend on who you talk to, because there are those who don’t think I am very liberal at all and think I’m very conservative. I don’t think anybody really knows. It’s especially like looking at a diamond ring - they pick out the facet that they like or dislike and dwell upon it.

I have, I think, very moderate stands. I have very conservative stands. On money, fiscal responsibility, and how you run a government, I’m extremely conservative, but I do believe in equal rights for everyone, equal opportunities for everyone, and I think that’s not only very American, I think that’s extremely Republican.

[. . .] If the Republican party is going to want to stay a little nugget of people, a very small, internally-looking organization, it will wind up like the old Whig party, which is irrelevant, marginalized, and ultimately, unexistent, and I would hate to see that.

Others, of course, rather like being small, internally-looking, irrelevant and marginalized. But I've been avoiding reading the warbloggers lately.

Well, been avoiding reading much of anything, which is why I only just noticed the whole Michael Moore.com : Mike's Message : Blog thing:

Well, it's late. Gotta get up to see who the next veep is. 62% of the country is female, black or hispanic. What are the chances? Ok, how bout in my lifetime? Before Halley's Comet returns?

Hope he wasn't too disappointed. . .

Anyone know of or working with any Greater Chicagoland Area groups in need of volunteers, by the way? Expect I should do something to stay off the streets and away from the computer.

Posted by Aaron at 5:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Lea Hernandez repeats a simple concept for the slow learners:

I have no fucking time for people who come in and complain as if I have no right to an opinion IN MY OWN BLOG.

To paraphrase Richard Belzer, I'm not your goddamn blogging pet. If you don't like what I'm saying, tough shit. Start your own blog.

I have some idle speculation as to what brought this on, which I will keep to myself. Except for linking the entry and directing readers to the comment by Anonymous, who bravely (if, um, anonymously) stands up against the "hypocritical sweeping generalizations" made about. . . oh, just read the damn thing.

Haven't had much problem with that sort of thing myself lately. I chalk this up to infrequent updates, low traffic, and a completely undeserved reputation for going effnic (or straight-up nigga) at the slightest provocation.

Nonsense. It takes a great deal of repeated provocation.

Update, and a poorly phrased one at that, but it's been preying on me mind for a while, and I don't think I'm going to come up with a better way of expressing it:

There is a difference between expressing a dissenting opinion and reacting with shock, horror and dismay at the slightest deviation from the non-stop stream of external validation one feels is one's birthright due to het/white/male/middle-class/Christian privilege.

There should be something about conforming to standards of beauty and size issues in there, which would better tie into the linked stuff at Dangerous Beauty, but that sentence is awkward enough as it is, don't you think?

Posted by Aaron at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

For the best, probably. There was a woman at the store staring at me when I was paying at the counter, which I'm going to chalk up to me buying Bitch rather than some other, more obvious reason.

This is before I walked out into the downpour. Again, for the best; using Wet Dread Fu in a comic store, probably not going to win me any fans among the staff and owners. Or innocent bystanders.

No, honest, Gothic Beauty Magazine. I don't have to make these things up. Hell, even when I do, I later find out that they actually exist anyway.

I had some point when I started this. . . oh, right, RazorBladeKisses:

Formed in February 2000, RazorBladeKisses is a self-styled Neo-Classical Goth band combining classical and baroque elements with heavier gothic metal and industrial influences, layered with strong visual imagery.

Think Ellis mentioned them at Die Puny Humans at some point, and I'm just going to blame credit him anyway. You can hear full samples, and buy songs for a shiny quarter apiece, at Mperia.

Yes, I bought A Death In the Dollhouse. Shut up.

Posted by Aaron at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Possibly not the best way of phrasing the idea. . . that's Vanessa Baird, author of Sex, Love And Homophobia, in the article Gay Persecution Rising Around the World - Book (not the best title/headline, either, no):

In the United States, Baird notes an increasing polarization of attitudes. "While San Francisco boasts the largest openly gay community of any city in the world, anti-homosexual movements in Kansas, Ohio and Colorado advocate as a 'Christian duty' the rejection, and in some cases even killing, of gay people."

"And this is not all just a small group of nutters in the mid-West," she told Reuters. "This kind of evangelism is growing, and unfortunately a substantial part of it is homophobic and says homosexuality is a sin or a disease."

Guess I should confirm that this is the same nutte--, ah, people insisting that contraception equals abortion, rather than just assuming they are and maintaining that they seem pretty opposed to sexuality generally, not just the same-sex variety. But that could take precious seconds of research.

Actually, longer, as neither the article nor the press release name any organizations. From the latter:

�Sex, Love and Homophobia� is the second book in Amnesty International�s Human Rights Issues series. It brings to light the hidden history of homosexuality, how it is regarded by different faiths, and the violent persecution of lesbian and gay people around the world. It is aimed at 16-year-olds and upwards, regardless of their sexual orientation, and provides a general introduction to the complex issues of sexuality and homophobia.

The book is published by Amnesty International UK, and its focus is global; I only quoted the bit about the US because that's the sort of person I am.

Posted by Aaron at 9:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Didn't mention that Warren Ellis has a new column, did I? It's linked in the sidebar; there are frames issues (and advertising considerations) involved in linking it directly, plus it'll be different for each installment. The current one plugs Tristan's show, which you probably missed on Saturday, but will have the chance to see next week, so you have no excuse. Because I'm using the "Vancouver is very far away" one myself, so get your own.

Today also brings us a new Brainpowered column at artbomb.net, titled Things Online That I Am Sick Of:

Blogs with the suffix -pundit in the title. These must all immediately be changed to -wankerinbasement. Not only is pundit just a horrible word with intimations of some barstool idiot with an uninformed opinion on everything, but, frankly, if they had any kind of useful take on anything, they'd have a real fucking job doing it.

No, that redirect doesn't work anymore, and yes, goneaway, you will pay for that one day. Unless I've already exacted my revenge and forgot about it, which is entirely possible. I make a very poor nemesis, as I have a terrible memory. . .

Which is why I haven't finished up that tour of every site in the links list -- you all forgot about that too, right? And you're just skimming this entry, and didn't notice I just reminded you of it? -- or done much evangelizing for WINKsite (or looked into updating via phone. . . or hacking the phone so I could attach a keyboard, as writing an entry on the numeric keypad would make me even more violently insane than I am already. . .) , and I'm probably going to forget to change the link to We Can't Tell Fantasy From Reality to the new domain/URI bitcheswithglitches.com. For which I apologize in advance.

Or after the fact.

Or something.

And I just realized I missed Free-For-All Friday. Slightly over a week ago. And only remembered because. . . well, visit Wendy's. And try not to get that song stuck in your head.

It is. . . too late for me.

Posted by Aaron at 9:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After all, the laptop only has the one USB port. What if I wanted to plug in a mouse and a keyboard, eh? Or the digital camera and the MiniDisc player? Or, um, some other combination of those, but only two at a time, seeing as this hub only has two ports?

What was that?

What "legitimate business" am I talking about?

Um. . . does writing this count?

No, not the site generally, I meant this particular entry.

And mind you:

Hello Kitty responds to your keyboard motion by talking and moving!

Hello Kitty will talk with you along with the input motion of the keyboard (moves both arms and head). Hello Kitty is able to talk in both Japanese and English. The languages can be switched. There is an English or Japanese manual available to you.

What it lacks in technical specs, it more than makes up for in style.

Seen at MilkandCookies, available for purchase from DreamKitty.com, who also carry Kogepan merchandise, but four pages in and I haven't seen a hub yet. . .

This is what happens when I check the Google referrers. See why I avoid the things?

And not speaking of Google, just added the GMailCompose Extension to Firefox:

Adds a context menu link for opening a GMail compose window when clicking on mailto: links and text email addresses.

Which would be much more useful if more people actually used mailto: links, but it looked really cool. As does the Hello, Kitty USB hub. You see the problem, yes?

Update:

http://www.mewave.com/direct/sanrio/

According to the specs, comes with two USB ports, meaning I wouldn't need the hub. Problem solved. God, I'm brilliant.

Posted by Aaron at 5:37 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (1)

Fandom frightens me. Silly, I know. From The Unofficial ISIS Appreciation Page:

Joanna Cameron to make rare East Coast Con appearance on July 31st!

Joanna is scheduled to appear at the Super Megafest in Baltimore, Maryland on Saturday, July 31st. According to the promoter's website, guests will have the opportunity to join Ms. Cameron for dinner that evening, as well as an 8x10 and a photo of yourself taken with her! Click here for more information.

I mean, what's frightening about that?

That was a rhetorical question, thanks.

For those of you too young to have any idea what I'm babbling about. . . you're happier that way. Trust me on this.

Posted by Aaron at 9:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (0)

Right, think I'm finally starting to figure out how the other half thinks. Or fails spectacularly to think. Or something. Over at Body and Soul, please see the entry simply titled, Pills:

From Prevention.com, here's an interesting article on the increasing number of "pro-life" doctors and pharmacists who refuse to prescribe birth control or fill prescriptions. We're not talking about a genuine conflict between individual conscience and public health as much as an under the radar political movement, supported by some pretty powerful people, to argue that birth control is abortion[.]

Ok. There's was a brief piece in the current Bust about. . . well, from ReligiousTolerance.org: 2004 developments: emergency contraception ("Morning After Pill"):

Eckerd Corp. fires three pharmacists over EC: Fox News reported that Eckerd Corp fired three of their Denton, TX pharmacists because they refused to fill an emergency contraception prescription for a woman who had been raped. Gene Herr said that he and two coworkers were fired six days after their refusal . He said that his own refusal was based on religious grounds. He allegedly believes that the medication could have killed an embryo if the woman had already conceived. He had allegedly declined to fill prescriptions for EC at least five times in the past. However, this was the first time that a case had involved a rape victim. He is reported as saying: "I went in the back room and briefly prayed about it. I actually called my pastor ... and asked him what he thought about it." The other two pharmacists who were on duty also refused to fill the prescription.

I can almost, almost, if I squint a little, see someone mistaking (not equating, mistaking, because, um, it's wrong) EC and abortion. Not quite, but almost.

But them folks mentioned in the Prevention piece?

[Julee] Lacey's pharmacist and [Melissa] Kelley's doctors are among hundreds, perhaps thousands, of physicians and pharmacists who now adhere to a controversial belief that birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraception--including the skin patch, the vaginal ring, and progesterone injections--cause tens of thousands of "silent" abortions every year. Consequently, they are refusing to prescribe or dispense them.

Scenarios like these--virtually unheard of 10 years ago--are happening with increasing frequency. However, until this spring, the issue received little attention outside the antiabortion community. It wasn't high on the agendas of reproductive rights advocates, who have been preoccupied with defending abortion rights and emergency contraception. But when Lacey's story was picked up by a Texas TV station and later made the national news, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and others took notice.

Their logic does not in the slightest resemble our Earth logic.

This does explain something else mentioned in Bust, the FDA rejection of over-the-counter sales of Plan B.

FDA acting drug chief Dr. Steven Galson overruled his own staff to issue the rejection last month. The FDA cited concern about young teenagers' use of emergency contraception without a doctor's guidance, but Galson said the agency will reconsider the decision if given more data.

Although "explain" may not be the word I'm grasping for there.

Between this, some of the arguments of defense counsel in that case I mentioned two entries back (but prefer not to quote, thanks) and the Jack Ryan thing (where the definition of "coercion" came up, regarding repeatedly taking your spouse to sex clubs when she [and, call me crazy, but I think gender kind'a enters into this]) has expressed zero interest. . . I'm starting to think there's a wee bit of confusion on some of these issues,

Well, that, or all this is actually about controlling women's sexuality, and all the medical data in the world isn't going to change minds. But that's just silly.

Posted by Aaron at 4:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

One of the brick walls I've been smacking into trying to write about anydamnthing lately (leading to veiny evil) is how language, particularly having to do with politics, sexuality, or even worse both, has been, oh, let's just say corrupted all to hell.

Can't put all the blame for this on Newt Gingrich and company, but since they explicitly spelled out how to go about it, I will anyway. Fuckers.

Any road up, a quote (of a quote) from Rape Language (reprinted with permission from "Reforging Relationships: intimacy without violence" by David Frazee and Suzanne O'Brien from the Stanford Rape Education Project.):

"I'm not aware of any common English phrases that allow one to express sexual desire in a way that acknowledges both lust and humanity." - Timothy Beneke in "Men on Rape"

Which I stumbled upon searching for more info on the book. I'm still slowly working my way through it; it's one of those things you have to put down and walk away from, from time to time.

Note carefully the word "common" in there, particularly if you're thinking about arguing the point.

And also "phrases," since some of the problems I'm running into, not just with writing but also reading, is a tendency (at the slightly higher, discourse level) to structure narratives, both personal and political, in certain, well-established ways.

That's a mess of a sentence. One very clear example, which ties back into the book, is how rape/sexual assault (and this combines the personal and political; doesn't everything?) is defined, prosecuted, defended against, related, etc.

I really hate that etc. at the end of that previous sentence, but got tired of trying to come up with a better way of ending it that didn't involve a hell of a lot of circumlocution, which ties back to the point of this entry, if it has one.

An example: Sisyphus Shrugged - yet another reason the girls see the world different than the boys:

Three guys on one unconscious underaged girl, with videotape? Repeat after me, campers: She asked for it. You know, before she was unconscious.

At the May 3 start of the Orange County trial of three teenage boys accused of gang-raping an unconscious minor, a defense attorney made a startling assertion: the alleged victim enticed the "sweet," "caring," "kind" defendants into a sexual frenzy and then, while faking unconsciousness, sexually assaulted them. At one point, the attorney, an incredulous Joseph G. Cavallo, blurted out to the jury, "Why isn�t she being charged with this crime?"

And another, Alternet: Rape Nation:

Dorothy Mackey is not alone. She and other women veterans recounted their experiences at the National Summit of Women Veterans Issues in Washington, DC June 19th and 20th. As an officer, scores of women had come to Mackey and told her about abuse and rapes they had suffered, by officers, fellow enlisted men and doctors. Many of the attacks involved servicemen intentionally getting women drunk or drugging them and taking them off base.

"When you are a new woman walking onto a military base, you are like a deer and it's deer hunting season, but you don't know it," she said. "You think you can trust these people, you believe in the mission you are on together."

With that last one, I left out the bit about the ob-gyn visits.

Mostly because they deviate even more from the standard narrative.

As for the one before that, in comments one learns that the jury deadlocked. That article provides a helpful list of ten reasons they may have reached this decision, including:

7. Mysterious "morning after" pill. [Jane] Doe testified that she had no memory of sex�unprotected or not�at the July 6 party, but the next day, she took a friend to a Planned Parenthood office, where she requested the so-called "morning after" pill that blocks pregnancy. Haidl and Spann had used condoms during their July 5 consensual encounters with her, but no one wore condoms during the videotaped gangbang.

Because why say emergency contraception when you can say "so-called 'morning after' pill," with sneer quotes and all? And make the whole thing sound all mysterious, and explicitly mention Planned Parenthood?

Ok, I might edit this for clarity or less rantyness at some point.

When I'm slightly less pissed off.

Posted by Aaron at 1:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

And I hardly think it's an unreasonable one, but I have been given to understand that my take on such things is often skewed. Cynthia McKinney Wins Support of Congresswomen:

On Saturday June 26, former Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was visited by Congresswoman Maxine Waters of California’s 35th Congressional District, Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur of Ohio’s 9th Congressional District, and Congresswoman Barbara Lee of California’s 9th Congressional District, who all came to Georgia’s Fourth Congressional District to lend their support to McKinney’s bid to regain her seat.

I realize it's entirely too much to ask that our white liberal "allies" sacrifice any political capital towards this effort, but if it wouldn't be too much trouble, could you not, you know, actively work against it?

I know, I know, it's a lot to ask, to allow us to make our own fucking decisions about who represents us, and we're so ungrateful, after all you've done for us, and she/we are so clearly delusional, and blah de blah.

You know what, though?

Fuck you.

I have had more than enough of having to put up with the bullshit that constantly streams from you mother fuckers, biting my tongue and working my brain to come up with a way of saying things without hurting your incredibly thin-skinned widdle white feelings.

So, again, fuck you. Fuck you up your stupid, holier-than-thou, barely-restrained-racist asses. I swear to God, the difference between you and the conservatives/Republicans is measurable in fucking millimeters.

There. I feel much better now.

So. Cynthia McKinney, who makes a brief cameo in the (ignored by good white liberals, who have "gotten over it") Florida election fiasco prologue to Fahrenheit 9/11, is running to regain her congressional seat.

I trust this isn't a problem for anyone.

Want to know more, or at least enough to have something intelligent to contribute? See also: The Screwing of Cynthia McKinney, by Greg Palast:

As an editor of the highly respected Atlanta Journal Constitution told NPR, McKinney’s “practically accused the President of murder!”

Problem is, McKinney never said it.

That’s right. The “quote” from McKinney is a complete fabrication. A whopper, a fabulous fib, a fake, a flim-flam. Just freakin’ made up.

Clearly, readers are encouraged not to toss this made-up quote my way.

Another totally unreasonable request from the nigger, I know.

Did I say "fuck you" already?

Well, it bears repeating.

Every god damn minute of every god damn day.

Posted by Aaron at 8:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (1)

"God damn, you white liberals needs to shut the fuck up and get the fuck away from me before I open this convenient can of whupass what I brought with me."

This reading is, of course, just one man's interpretation, and the one should consult the original text, What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?, rather than relying on my admittedly biased opinion:

Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us?

Would to God, both for your sakes and ours, that an affirmative answer could be truthfully returned to these questions! Then would my task be light, and my burden easy and delightful. For who is there so cold, that a nation's sympathy could not warm him? Who so obdurate and dead to the claims of gratitude, that would not thankfully acknowledge such priceless benefits? Who so stolid and selfish, that would not give his voice to swell the hallelujahs of a nation's jubilee, when the chains of servitude had been torn from his limbs? I am not that man. In a case like that, the dumb might eloquently speak, and the "lame man leap as an hart."

But, such is not the state of the case.

Emphasis added, because that's the sort of mood I'm in.

I'm drawing a totally arbitrary distinction here between liberals and progressives, but am confident that people who have proven, time and again, that they most definitely fall into the former category will wrongly assume they belong in the latter.

Luckily, I'm in just shitty enough a mood to correct this error on their part.

Rather looking forward to it, in fact.

Shorter Aaron Hawkins: Happy Fucking Fourth of July, assholes. Now take that shit someplace else.

Or:

You taught me language, and my profit on't
Is, I know how to curse

Which isn't that much shorter, really.

Posted by Aaron at 7:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

I'm not saying it's a good or a bad moment, it just. . . is. No enthusiasm for quoting or typing (as opposed to writing) commentary, so just a link of totally random links from which readers are free to draw what conclusions they may:

• Gender and Diversity at E3
• misbehaving.net: E3 and Women
• games.slashdot.org: E3 'Booth Babe' Interviews Reveal Comedy, Tragedy
• E3 2004 Report: Booth Babe Dialogues

Well, maybe one quote, from the first link:

There have been steps forward - but companies like Microsoft and Eidos take a great leap backward when they employ porn stars to promote their games. That is - games that don't feature the stars or their porn in any way.

I get it, tho. Even just signing autographs, Tara produced quite a line...exactly what the analysts and chain store managers are looking for. At least, so far.

And maybe some typing: I haven't the slightest clue who Tara is. And had to give up reading comments in that linked Slashdot article, as is always the case when I read comments in Slashdot articles, and you'd think I would have learned better by now.

Oh, one more link, by way of Drylongso: You are what you eat: The pervasive porn industry and what it says about you and your desires, by Robert Jensen.

There are many points in the pornography debate on which reasonable people can disagree. Legal strategies raise important issues about freedom and responsibility, and definitive connections between media consumption and human behavior are always difficult to establish. More generally, sexuality is a complex phenomenon in which wide human variation makes universal claims suspect.

But the feminist critique inspires an apoplectic reaction from pornography’s defenders that, to me, has always seemed over the top. The political debate that the critique set off, both within feminism and in the wider culture, seems unusually intense.

[. . .] One obvious reason for the strength of these denunciations is that pornographers make money, hence there is a profit motive in moving quickly with maximal force to marginalize or eliminate criticism of the industry. But the more important reason, I believe, is that at some level everyone knows that the feminist critique of pornography is about more than pornography. It encompasses a critique of the way “normal” men in this culture have learned to experience sexual pleasure -- and the ways in which women and children learn to accommodate that and/or suffer its consequences. That critique is not just a threat to the pornography industry or to the personal collections that men have stashed in their closets, but to everyone. The feminist critique asks a simple but devastating question of men: “Why is this sexually pleasurable to you, and what kind of person does that make you?”

I'm perilously close to using the term "hetero-normative." Sorry about that.

How, or if, any of this ties into the oft-linked Sex pros get ready for party:

With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party.

Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.

"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week everyone wants to work."

Well, I'm not certain. And, clearly, I lied when I said there would just be the one additional link, and should edit that bit out.

Trying to work out something about the absurdity of accusing Republicans of being represented by John Ashcroft, he of the stern morality (and fitting in those comments Bush made in Turkey a few days back), and the head-explody contradiction of both pro- and anti-pornography feminists simultaneously peacefully coexisting within the Democratic Party, but don't see much point.

Should mention that Jensen's brief, oversimplified "pornographers make money" deserves clarification, but that could easily get all gender-y and class-based, and who wants to read that on a beautiful, if slightly overcast, Saturday afternoon?

And pity if you do, because I'm not feeling much like typing it.

Posted by Aaron at 12:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (8) | TrackBacks (1)

Although an image consisting chiefly of text may defeat the purpose. . . still, here ya go:

Guess I could resize that thing, instead of using the width and height attributes to. . . skip it. Anyway, there's a convenient store locator, based on your zip code, and some of the offerings from the Silver Sponsors look good. The Del Rey manga sampler, f'r instance, and, um, the NBM Sampler. . . which, I see, doesn't include the advertised Rumble Girls pages after all, so, um, maybe that one's out after all.

Once again, my lack of enthusiasm shouldn't be taken as indicating anything other than my individual suckage. Readers are encouraged to support their local shop, assuming said readers are fortunate enough to actually have one. Attrition rate for them things is. . . I'm doing it again, ain't I? Sorry.

Update: Oh, right, totally missed that Slave Labor Graphics also has a book available. So you should at least go and pick that up.

I'm going to see if I can manage to get out of Amazing Fantasy Books & Comics without replacing the Fetish Dress Hello Kitty. Luckily, I think they were out of them the last time I went. Unluckily, that was several months ago. . .

Posted by Aaron at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

Yep, revival.

Burlesque, that is. The Suicide Girls are performing even as I type, most likely, right here in Chi. Tomorrow, The Sin-O-Matic Burlesque Show, starring America's Canadia's Sweetheart Tristan Risk kicks off. And in a few short weeks, Sissy Butch Bros. will be bringing Gurlesque Burlesque to The Abbey Pub on July 16th and 17th.

Still haven't been to a show myself, but that next one, I'm there. Unless I'm not.

Don't let my lack of enthusiasm spoil it for you, though. After all, I'll probably blow off/miss Free Comic Book Day tomorrow, too, but it represents a unique opportunity to go to the local shop and, possibly, not be surrounded solely with the sorts of people who frequent comic shops. Some of them might have three, possibly even four women in there simultaneously. Imagine.

Could tie this into Chicago Comics, Quimby's, and missing the SG book release thing tonight, but that may involve adding links to the previous. . .

Posted by Aaron at 10:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There should be a big crinkle, assuming this map is right
John looked over and said, Hey, no its not
It's a crumpled up wrapper from the fast food that we got
I heard They Might Be somewhere in this town

They Might Be Giants got lost driving around.

Kind'a hard to miss Grant Park, though, so I expect the show July 4th will go smoothly. Except for the inevitable rain. Anyone going? I haven't made plans that far in advance.

Oh, and after all the threats and carrying on, my response to the child who asked if she could touch the dreads as I was suffering riding the Blue Line the other night. . . was a polite, "Yes."

All mouth and trousers, me.

Posted by Aaron at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)